Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 8

< January 7	January 9 >

January 8

Template:Huntsville Havoc Roster

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does not transclude to anything after AFD deleted only page it was transcluded on. This information is better located on the page for the Huntsville Havoc where I have already copied it too. No need to have a separate template for it when there is likely to be no other pages using it. — Djsasso (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Flibirigit (talk) 05:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Happy‑melon 11:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete orphaned and unlikely to be used, per nom. Maralia (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template: 2007-08 SPHL standings

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need for this to be a template. Can just be listed on main league article. The only article that this template was transcluded to was recently afd'd. — Djsasso (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Flibirigit (talk) 05:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused. Happy‑melon 11:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox graphic designer

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G2. Mike Peel (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template doesn't work and it appears to be abandoned. — Leo Laursen ( T | C ) 22:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G2 as a test page. Happy‑melon 11:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:WorldSeriesRt

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what's the purpose of this template when Template:WorldSeries does the trick. --Howard the Duck 15:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very tricky one. I would say a very weak delete, on the basis that {{WorldSeries}} is used in more articles. Happy‑melon 20:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can see the reasoning for having it, but since the individual articles all have infoboxes having the infoboxes and vertical box can make it clunky. Also, regular sporting events (national or international) are generally presented as a navbar at the bottom (Olympics, FA Cup, etc.) - 52 Pickup (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My previous comments relevant to this discussion can be found on the template's talk page. MisfitToys (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Quite a few templates emulated this template, such as {{NBA seasons}} which was converted to a bottom-dweller after discussion at Talk:2007-08 NBA season. --Howard the Duck 03:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that there is a separate Template:WorldSeries which appears at the bottoom of pages. MisfitToys (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Austronesian-speaking countries and territories

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was to keep. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A navigation template, but the countries concerned do not share a common culture or heritage. It might be useful on Austronesian languages, but not on country articles. Largely redundant with Category:Austronesian languages. How many editors who load for example the Nauru article will use this template to navigate to another article? We may as well add every country in the "List of countries ..." that Nauru appears in to a template at the bottom of each country article.gadfium 07:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the categories and other back-end stuff is fine for experienced Wikipedia editors but someone who just wants to navigate the group of articles will find templates infinitely easier. They don't clutter up the article as they're at the absolute bottom, below links, sources and anything else. They are a few b in size and contribute to the article significantly enough to warrant being kept. Austranesian nation templates are no more strange then the many pre-existing templates on Romance-speaking nations, Germanic-speaking, Anglophone nations or Celtic-nations. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 07:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, having clear utility as a navigational template. Happy‑melon 14:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hexagon1, but remove flag images - other templates (e.g. {{La Francophonie}}, {{Germanic-speaking regions of Europe}} don't use flags; and it is these images that are responsible for the increase in loading time, not the template itself. The two sub-navbars should probably be merged, too - 52 Pickup (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I've removed the flags, and have rewritten the template so it's more intuitive. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Anglophone states

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was to keep. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another navigation template which clutters geographical/country articles. This is redundant with List of countries by English-speaking population and Category:English-speaking countries and territories but could possibly be substituted into Anglosphere. These templates increase page loading time and article size, but provide no value over the equivalent lists and categories.-gadfium 07:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the categories and other back-end stuff is fine for experienced Wikipedia editors but someone who just wants to navigate the group of articles will find templates infinitely easier. They don't clutter up the article as they're at the absolute bottom, below links, sources and anything else. They are a few b in size and contribute to the article significantly enough to warrant being kept. Anglophone nation templates are no more strange then the many pre-existing templates on Romance-speaking nations, Germanic-speaking, Austronesian-speaking nations or Celtic nations. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 07:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Hexagon1. Clear utility as a navigational template. Happy‑melon 13:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hexagon1, but remove flag images - other templates (e.g. {{La Francophonie}}, {{Germanic-speaking regions of Europe}} don't use flags; and it is these images that are responsible for the increase in loading time, not the template itself. - 52 Pickup (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the flags, good point. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Polish soldier

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by {{Infobox Military Person}} per Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Infobox conversion. — — MrDolomite • Talk 05:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused and deprecated. Happy‑melon 13:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete deprecated and now orphaned. Maralia (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Carolingians, Middle Francia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated:
Template:Carolingians, Aquitaine
Template:Carolingians, East Francia
Template:Carolingians, West Francia

These templates are all about artificial and arbitrary family branches. These so-called "branches" are not encountered in the literature. Inclusion of figures on the templates also seems arbitrary, since many daughters are excluded. The Carolingians form one family with no non-arbitrary "branches" and none that I know scholarship to use. So long as User:Michaelsanders maintains these templates to be genealogical in nature, they are of no use and unencyclopaedic. WP is not a genealogical directory and it is of no use to tell us who Pepin I of Aquitaine's few descendants were in a sidebar template. I would be open to seeing the templates revamped as non-genealogical and removed to the bottom of the pages they are on, but so long as Michael Sanders maintains that they are genealogical, I will consider them to fail WP's template inclusion criterion #1. — Srnec (talk) 04:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith nomination - Srnec objects to the use of templates, in common with others such as Template:House of Valois1 and Template:House of Plantagenet, to represent a dynasty. He already nominated the Middle Frankish Template (then called "Carolingians, Lotharingia and Italy") for deletion one before, on 21 November. As they stand, they are reasonably thorough, referencing readers to all members of the four family groups - both men and women - for whom there are wikipedia articles, whilst at the same time serving their purpose, by clearly showing who of the branch was a reigning monarch and where. Michael Sanders 11:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, there are no "branches" and "family groups" in the literature, so the templates are arbitrary and confusing. The previous nomination was in good faith it merely ended in consensus. I do not object solely to templates. As I said, a bottom template that is more than an incomplete genealogy would suit me just fine. Srnec (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Historians quite frequently talk about the disputes between the descendant lines (or, in the case of Pippin II, himself and his uncle, Charles the Bald). Michael Sanders 12:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So now "Pippin II" and "Charles the Bald" are descendant lines? And I thought they were individuals... I am not aware of historians making a big deal about the different "lines" of the Carolingian clan. I am aware of them putting major emphasis on the unity of the family, such that the East Frankish Charles the Fat readily cooperated with the West Frankish Carloman and Louis and with Louis the Blind, who he may have adopted, a Carolingian only through his mother, who was a daughter of the Emperor Louis II. This does not sound like a family with many "inter-branch" conflicts. The family conflicts were of the "sibling rivalry" variety on the grand scale. Brothers are not branches. Srnec (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Pippin II and Charles the Bald aren't descendant lines in themselves. Pippin I and Charles the Bald left descendant lines). The Bourbons of Spain and France had far fewer '"inter-branch' conflicts' than the Carolingians (who were constantly invading the kingdoms of oneanother, and insisting that their own branch had superior rights to this or that piece of territory than another branch). They also co-operated with each other, and the kings of Spain presumed themselves to be heirs of the Kings of France. Still get different templates, though, to demonstrate clearly to the readers that they are different branches of the same family. Because it would be confusing otherwise. Michael Sanders 18:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have no knowledge of this subject, and do not intend to acquire any. TfD is not the place to decide whether or not these are a suitable way of organising this series of articles - if you are incapable of forming a consensus amongst the regular editors of these articles (as appears to be the case), consider making an RFC to gain the input of other editors who are more familiar with the subject. Once you've decided how to organise the articles, and have adjusted the templates accordingly, if you decide that one or more need to be deleted, come back here. Happy‑melon 13:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Templates are artificial, arbitrary, ugly and unnecessary. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you don't like it is hardly a convincing reason for deletion. Michael Sanders 15:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Michael, sure. You're getting it all jumbled. I'll put it in bold for you: I don't like it, but not for no reason, but because ... wait for it ... these templates are artificial, arbitrary, ugly and unnecessary. I'd actually already written that, you know? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In your opinion. I could say it's "natural, organic and necessary". Happily, deletions are not decided on the basis of personal tastes, as the essay above indicates. Michael Sanders 16:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the template(s) serves the valid purposes of outlining the branches of the Carolingians after Louis the Pious, the Western, the Eastern and the Middle one. Granted, this one here gets more fragmented but as we need the other two, the third is needed too. And yes, these branches are used in literature. Str1977 ^(talk) 01:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Flagship University

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This template lists the largest (and usually most prestigious) campus in each of America's major university systems. The problem is that university systems differ enough that it's impossible to compare them in an objective manor. For example, Pennsylvania State University has 24 different campuses. The University of Michigan has three. My alma mater, Michigan State University has but one (which is the flagship campus by default). The State University of New York has no flagship campus, but it does have four "university centers", none of which are included on this template.

Furthermore, if the intent of this template is to group America's "major" public universities, there is already a much more NPOV solution: Template:Association of American Universities. Since that template refers to an actual organization, it has a much more objective list of American universities. Thanks, Lovelac 7 02:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no definitive list of flagship universities. It's too ambiguous and there are too many potential schools for this to be a worthwhile template. Rothamell mentions a USA Today list on the talk page, but that only lends itself to a template name something like "USA Today's List of Flagship Universities, 2006", which is not exactly appropriate for Wikipedia.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 03:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm okay with keeping the USA Today list in the Wikipedia, but only as part of a larger article, not as a template. Lovelac 7 03:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete! USA Today did a classification in 2006 USA Today 2006 Classification

--I just think that we should use their 75 Universities that they used to say which Public Universities are their respective Flagships of their state. I am sure the less schools will be upset, however it's the historic leaders, and should be acknowledged as such. Just my opinion. (User:Rothamell) —Preceding comment was added at 01:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC) ---posted from previous discussion from fellow UF Wikipedian. I posted Rothamell's comments User:jccort[reply]

Also AAU has nothing to do with being a Flagship Univeristy. It's Apples to Oranges. Perhaps Lazytiger is upset the university likes is not added as a flagship. User:jccort 10:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also keep in perspective that if someone deletes the Template, then they will have to go to all 75 Universities and delete the links that I had previously added. Seems like alot of work to have to do because someone is bitter that their university didn't make the list. User:jccort 10:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, jccort, the university I went to is on the list. I'm not that juvenile; however, it is very understandable that others would be upset that their university isn't included and I can only reiterate my simple complaint: "flagship" is not a definitive term and I guarantee this template will end up being unruly unless it is narrowly defined as being USA Today's list, which I don't see as an appropriate or necessary template for Wikipedia. I agree with Lovelac that the USA Today list could possibly be used in an article somewhere, but not as a template.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 03:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Careful jccort, no personal attacks. Arguing that people will be upset is no way to decided what or what not to include in Wikipedia. Nor do I think that a university not being called a flagship is a put-down, after all most of the best universities in the U.S. are private, where the term flagship is, to my knowledge, never applied. I can only suggest that self-described "flagship" institutions be included. I can best speak of my knowledge of the Missouri higher education system. The University of Missouri–Columbia is often called the flagship institution of the state, by itself and third-parties. No other institution within the state has applied the flagship moniker on itself, or had it applied by a third party. Perhaps if we could get a list of which states this is not the case in, we could see just how controversial the template might be.Grey Wanderer | Talk 05:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided If the Flagship university is the public University with the largest budget, largest enrollment and largest endowment and there's a clear winner then maybe this is an important classification. More importantly is the term used heavily in public arena with a definitive usage? It does have 43k hits Usage derives from the 4th definition on Dictionary.com for Flagship 4. The best or most important one of a group or system but Dictionary.com doesn't list "Flagship University". It seems to be a recent coining of the phrase and what best or most importants quantification seems unclear or over expansive. Alatari (talk) 03:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A "flagship" university has no meaning in the general lexicon. To be included in the template just because an institution has more than one campus does not make any sense. Also, Central Michigan University has various campuses throughout Michigan, as does Western Michigan University, and neither is included in the template. The "flagship" classification is too ambiguous to have as a "term" in Wikipedia. X96lee15 (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has great meaning in the general lexicon, just google the term. Neither of the institutions you named has even described themselves as flagship institutions, so why would they be on the list?Grey Wanderer | Talk 05:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaah, I misunderstood the meaning of flagship. I initially thought it was the "main campus" for a single school system, such as University of Michigan, Ann Arbor being the "flagship" of University of Michigan, Dearborn and University of Michigan, Flint. In fact, it is a MORE arbitrary classification. Looking at the USA Today link, it does not describe how the schools were selected, because of that, it doesn't seem as if the list is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. X96lee15 (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- "Flagship" is an arbitrary designation. Nowhere is the definition of "flagship" explained. Is it designated by the largest school in a particular state? No. Some state's have multiple schools listed where others do not. It certainly isn't done by ranking/prestige as they are a collection of schools from all over the academic map. USAToday's categorization is completely arbitrary as well, it methodology not explained for inclusion of certain schools, and is thus not a true categorization. Therefore, it has no meaning. The best, AND ONLY serious, categorization of universities is the Carnegie Classifications[1].70.20.211.242 (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - What about simply including schools that are self-described as a flagship, except for limited circumstance (Texas?) there isn't usually a debate over this. Whatever the case it is a very commonly used term in the United States, and for Wikipedia to simply declare that the topic is too difficult so they're not going to deal with it just yells Pontius Pilate syndrome.Grey Wanderer | Talk 05:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as above. Just improve the template. 0 (talk) 10:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody have an instance of a self-describe "flagship" university not on this list?Grey Wanderer | Talk 05:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also an interesting and seemingly well-researched definition:

"What do we mean by the term "flagship" universities? The term applies, in all the cases I can think of, to the fully mature public universities serving most of states. In most cases, these institutions were the first public universities to be established in their states. Many of what we now call the flagship campuses were established in the extraordinary period of university building that took place in the United States in the roughly three decades from the mid-1850s to the mid-1880s. Many came into being after the Morrill Act of 1863 provided the federal grants of land to the states to establish public universities. Some states built two institutions, a land-grant college focused on agriculture and the "mechanical arts" as well as general education, and another more directed at classical education and the other professions. For example, Michigan, Indiana, Iowa, Washington, and Texas, among others, built separate institutions, while Illinois, Minnesota, Ohio, and California combined the land-grant and liberal arts function on a single campus. These institutions formed the core of the public systems of higher education in their respective states. State teachers colleges, later evolving into regional state colleges or universities, formed the rest of the higher education institutions in most states.

"But it was always clear that the one or two institutions that were the original land-grant or public universities in the states were the flagships--the leaders--even though they may not have been referred to as such. They became the centers for research and graduate education and they developed an array of professional schools that added to their size, scope, and pre-eminence."

My source, an essay on the future of flagship universities: http://cio.chance.berkeley.edu/chancellor/sp/flagship.htm Grey Wanderer | Talk 06:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting essay, but it is still just someone's opinion, and therefore not a fact worthy of the encyclopedia. Lovelac 7 13:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Is Robert M. Berdahl the author of that definition considered a scholar and reliable source for this purpose? We need to submit it to the reliable sources desk. IMO, as a long term chancellor and professor he would be scholarly on this topic. He is president of the Association of American Universities and as such his opinion is valuable on this topic. Alatari (talk) 10:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a great read; I suggest everyone involved with this discussion take a look. I don't think there's any question that Dr. Berdahl is a scholar and a reliable source. However, his convocation speech has nothing to do with making a list of flagship universities, so I don't think it really matters much to our discussion. It would be a great source for the Flagship university article, though.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 14:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see the point of this template. It is out of date for a source and anyways we already have a similar template. This also is objective. What defines a flagship university? Does it mean it has a branch campus? Then even Community Colleges would be included. And deciding the major college in a state is also objective. Especially since there are more than 50, how come some states are definitive and others have more than one? Why is PSU and not PITT also? PSU is bigger but no better academically. PSU has more branch campuses, but that is already not a reason as seen in the MSU Michigan comparison. And that is just one of many such occurrences. Also if it the first then it would be Pitt over Penn State (1787 compared to 1855). PSU is a land grant school, so which is the research? This is a useless (and hard to read) template Superbowlbound (talk) 07:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. The lack of definition to this use of Flagship is what causes this template to fail. Do we included every university that is called this, calls themselves this, fits generalised criteria, etc? — Huntster (talk • email • contribs) 08:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Deletion This is a good template that someone obviously put alot of work into. Also props to Jccort for quoting my previous argument. In my professional opinion, I say we strictly follow the USA Today list of 75 Universities. The Template is good because we need to make distinctions of which institutions are in fact flagship Universities. By having a template it makes that information more accessible, and helps the reader to get a better understanding of the top public universities in their respective states. This is a badge of honor in my opinion, and it's incumbent upon the academic community to recognize this distinction.

In addition, the USA Today list comes from the Carnegie Classification that has been in existence for more than half a century. So it's not as if they just pick and chose the institutions out of a hat. Everyone of these institutions deserve to be identified as such because they have been labeled for many generations.

USA Today list does not come from the Carnegie Classifications. There is no "Flagship" classification from the Carnegie. See the actual Carnegie Classifications here:[2]

I would also like to add that their is a movement in the academic community for the newer and less prestigious Urban Universities to circumvent the clout that the Flagships have historically enjoyed. I believe that you will do a great injustice to the flagships by taking away this distinction. (User:Rothamell) 11:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The point of this template, it seems, would be to identify the "most important" public universities in each state. That is of course largely subjective, which is precisely why Wikipedia does not allow original research. This most likely also violates the other two of Wikipedia's most important policies: Neutrality and Verifiability. Not to mention there would be at least one per state, and I believe the template would simply be too large.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 13:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Lazytigerthanks Astuishin (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ This list does have historic and political merit for Florida, at least. I would suggest the parties in the various states hash out what qualifies and what does not as we have done in Florida. Let the states decide. Sirberus (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems relatively arbitrary and does not appear to add much value to the articles it has been placed on. The template duplicates the information in the article flagship university, which is unsourced. Karanacs (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

> What do you mean unsourced? flagship university has 3 sources. User:70.88.115.121 14:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One source is an arbitrary list from USAToday with no explanation of their methodology for selection. The other two sources are the same: both use the Chronicle of Higher Education. The Chronicle articles do use the term "flagship universities", but does not include either a list or criteria for inclusion on any such list. Actually, that article should be deleted from wikipedia, or at least the list appearing on that page should be deleted.

Keep, but edit as needed. Let's just make sure it's congruent with the USA Today Listing. Clearly this template has value, and it's needed for the Wikipedia Community. I believe that it would be a slippery slope to delete something just because it's a politically question. User:70.88.115.121 14:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why so heated? I had the best of intentions when I created the Template. Clearly it should be kept and serves a very good purpose. Perhaps the original person who objected did not have an agenda, but clearly there are alot of people who do not want to see their rival university labeled as a Flagship University. I find it unfortunate that we can't all agree to stay congruent with the Carnegie Classifications & USA Today listings. User:jccort
~~Without a doubt keep the Template~~ User:jccort
- Debate all you like, but only vote once, please. Lovelac 7 07:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not that being a flagship university isn't noteworthy, and I will concede that there are universities out there that definitely qualify as a flagship by any practical definition. The problem is that you're dealing with a continuous curve of criteria and you can't draw a neat line where it should stop. Way too much weight is being given to this USA Today list. No one—not even USA Today—is claiming the list consists of anything but arbitrary selections, and they do not give any criteria for how they made their selections. It's unfortunate that they used the word "flagship" at all, as it was only used in passing. It is simply a survey of tuition costs at select, large public universities. It is not a ranking of any kind, contrary to what is stated in the Flagship university#External Links section. As I commented before, this template (and the Flagship university article) are tacitly declaring which universities are the most important in each state and that's simply not something that should be done here because it constitutes original research, it is inherently not neutral, and cannot be verified by any authoritative or comprehensive source. If you want, you could make a list of schools that are in the Carnegie classification of "Very High Research", but then we're not talking about the same list and the word "flagship" should not be used (in the title, at least).—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 17:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal with all due respect the USA Today listing is based off of the Carnegie Classifications. In United States History institutions have been noted as being Flagships. I don't understand why this issue is so personal to you. Be that as it may, this list is based off of past precedents, and it would be a shame to not give credit to institutions that have historically always been Flagship Universities. Having said that if we as editors delete the Template then we will be doing a great diservice to the historic significance to these institutions. Oh also stop making this a political debate, and think about the historical context. (User:Jccort) 18:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USA Today list does not come from the Carnegie Classifications. There is no "Flagship" classification from the Carnegie. See the actual Carnegie Classifications here:[3]. "Flagship" is a completely arbitrary designation.

You can very easily draw a line. Self-described flagship universities, which is what the template basically consist of now, should be listed. This way Wikipedia is in no way making a commentary on the term "flagship," it is simply reflective of the de facto usage (wow, lazytiger, does this seem similar to a month ago?). I also have yet to see anyone put forth an institution that should be on this template, that has applied the term flagship to itself. There's an awful lot of "But what about my Alma Mater Southwestren State ________," we'll of course said regional/masters institution isn't going to be a flag ship. It requires no original research as, once again, only universities that can be well-sourced as describe as flag ship are included.Grey Wanderer | Talk 18:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my main point is, why is this an argument about who deserves the term flagship or what it means? It should be about who uses the term, there is your line, clear-cut and straight forward.Grey Wanderer | Talk 18:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like every university has a page on their website stating their position on the issue. Some universities may constantly claim they're a flagship, others might not actively or officially promote it, yet de facto usage determines that it is. Some states' university systems simply aren't set up that way. If you think that those states just shouldn't have any schools listed, I ask what's the point of a list of schools arbitrarily labeling themselves "flagship"? There has to be criteria, otherwise it's a useless term. Even if you establish criteria, you will quickly find there are schools that meet the criteria that don't call themselves flagships, or vice versa. Jccort made the template and therefore not surprisingly is very defensive of it, but I'm not taking any stance that I don't think is backed up by facts as I've already stated above. The ONLY verifiable defense of the term flagship that I've seen put forth here is the Carnegie classifications. In that case, as I've already suggested, someone should make a template/list/article/whatever based directly on those classifications. Carnegie does NOT endorse any school as being a "flagship". I imagine they're quite indifferent to the term. This discussion is one about making a definitive list of flagship schools, which simply does not exist and therefore is original research, or at least an original compilation of research. And a hell of a lot of research, I might add, if you're going to be as thorough as you ought to be. Count me out. Why am I objecting so vehemently? Because I don't want yet another template that I consider frivolous (and I'm not the only one; in fact, I believe the delete votes are winning right now) cluttering up the bottoms of articles.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 19:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lazytiger has no reasonable excuse to delete If we were in Court I would file a motion to dismiss. I will breakdown this user's argument:

"The ONLY verifiable defense of the term flagship that I've seen put forth here is the Carnegie classifications. In that case, as I've already suggested, someone should make a template/list/article/whatever based directly on those classifications. Carnegie does NOT endorse any school as being a "flagship"."

> Well flagship is not really an endorsement. It's a mark of distinction that makes just one or two universities get special emphasis. As unfair as this may seem, it's quite simply how history has been facilitated over the years. In essence Lazytiger is trying to circumvent prior precedents for some false sense of equality. Creating a template for Carnegie Flagship Universities makes no sense, and you will see that the Template that I created is congruent with Carnegie Classifications that have been facilitated for decades.

"I imagine they're quite indifferent to the term. This discussion is one about making a definitive list of flagship schools, which simply does not exist and therefore is original research, or at least an original compilation of research."

>They have not only existed, but have been flagships before almost all of us were ever even born. Deleting the Flagship University distinction is not only dangerous, it doesn't make any sense. (User:Jccort) 19:55. 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to worry about any of my unreasonable excuses for deleting your template; I will go along with whatever is agreed upon here. As far as you breaking down my arguments, we're on different wavelengths here, jccort. I shouldn't have used the word "endorse" regarding the Carnegie Foundation; I should have used "use", as in: The Carnegie Foundation does not use the word "flagship" in reference to any university. This is a true statement. Show me where the Carnegie Foundation has ever created a list of institutions that it calls "flagship". Show me even one institution. They don't use the term. What I suggested was creating a list of universities that Carnegie qualifies as "Very High Research Activity", which I imagine would create an actual definitive list of universities that correlates fairly well with the supposed list of flagships. I'm well aware that there is a historical use of the term "flagship" by many universities. Never once have I questioned that. Not once have I said that all universities are equal. Not once have I said that I don't want the term used in reference to individual universities as Wikipedians see fit. What I'm saying is, there is no definitive list of universities that are flagships and I don't think there should be because it's an ambiguous, undefined term that is not used uniformly. I don't even object to the existence of the Flagship university article as far as describing common attributes of universities using the term, but I really don't think a template of this list is worthy of contributing to the template clutter found in many articles.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 21:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UndecidedWhile I agree that "flagship universities" do exist, I'm not sure that this template is needed for a couple of reasons. 1) The USA Today article is meaningless and a horrible source. Is there any idea at all of what criteria was used? 2)A combination of AAU membership and Carnegie Classification is a far more reliable indicator of who a given state's flagship university is. 3)In some state's historical factors come into play. Pennsylvania for example. Yes, Pitt is Penn State's academic equal, but it's not the state's flagship university. Penn State was founded to fulfill that role while Pitt was a semi-private municipal university that was relatively recently folded into the state system. In Ohio, two older public universities were bypassed through a conscious decision of the state's business and political leadership who founded a new university to be the flagship state university and subsequently wrote that into law. Such historical nuances don't lend themselves easily to a blanket listing. 4) This template is going to be a source of constant infighting by those who want to include their alma mater or argue for deletion because their alma mater is not included. A lot of time and energy will be put into these squabbles that could better be used to improve individual university articles.--Sam Harmon (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE State systems vary on how they run their systems. Apples to oranges in many cases. How can Wikipedia start calling this contest? On the USA Today list, both UNC-CH and NC State appear. Only UNC-CH is on the template. The UNC System (which both are apart) does not designate a flagship. I have to agree with Mr. Harmon's opinion. This template is not worth the fight and I feel it should be deleted. --Thunder (talk) 05:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lazytiger is exactly right. It constitutes new research and cannot be included. No one has provided any link or source for determining a university's inclusion into such a list by either historical or current attributes of a candidate school (size, research, etc). Unless a link or other source with a list of "flagship" schools with outlined criteria is provided, the template must be deleted (as well as the list on the flagship university page).cp101p (talk) 05:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Who mad USA Today the authority on flagship universities just because they published an article. This is supposed to be a template of flagship institution then it should be defined by wikipedia terms NThomas76207 (talk) 06:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Some non-original research: list of flagships (by LSU) and a definition (by Admissions Consultants).Grey Wanderer | Talk 06:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
Gray Wanderer, the two links you site above give contradictory definitions. The Admissions Consultants website says "[a] flagship university is the main campus of a state university system." The LSU website just lists a single university for each state, many of which are not on the template. In any case, these two websites only show that "Flagship University" is too murky of term to define in a template. Lovelac 7 07:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After reviewing all the information, again, and thinking hard. I've striked-out everything I've said that I now disagree with. Perhaps a category, or the list already created would be more appropriate. I think the list should stay, as long as wikipedia has a list of "public ivys" it can have list of "flagships"Grey Wanderer | Talk

Delete I am persuaded that this category is very likely WP:OR and also constitutes an issue that may border on fancruft. In addition, it detracts from the relative cooperation that should exist while building this body of work known as Wikipedia and does not compensate that cost with substantial added value. My vote is changed to delete. Sirberus (talk) 12:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we at least have a Public Ivy Template? This would seem like a fair compromise. (User:Jccort) 12:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not part of our discussion here. If you want to discuss a Public Ivy template, I suggest doing so at Talk:Public Ivy.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 15:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. If we are going to delete the Flagship University Template, then I also ask we delete the Largest University by enrollment Templates as well. I am sick and tired of people trying to make Large Public Universities look like they are not quality institutions. It's time we get credit for our hard work. (User:Jccort) 16:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not part of our discussion here. If you want to discuss deleting Template:Largest United States universities by enrollment, I suggest doing so at Template_talk:Largest United States universities by enrollment and/or Talk:List_of_largest_United_States_universities_by_enrollment.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 17:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. This template is not academic, encyclopedic, or authoritative. It certainly provides no usefulness other than marketing and promotion by alumni or interested parties of their particular alma mater or favored institution of higher learning. Simply put, considering the heated debate about this issue, I suggest deletion, and deletion promptly. Streltzer (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A USA Today listing is definitely nothing to go making templates from. Additionally, not deleting because someone will have to go around to all 75 Uni pages and take off the template is silly. This and things like "Public Ivy" are too subjectively defined for templates.-steventity (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Delete After thinking about my "undecided" post above and reading other comments, I vote for delete. I also agree with the No on the "public ivy" template. Both public ivy books are the highly subjective (and in the case of the first one, woefully outdated) opinions of single individuals. If individual university articles want to overly trump their public ivy "status" that's fine. I just find it ironic that those schools who cling most dearly to this status seem to be the ones with the fewest other accolades to list. Coincidence? I doubt I can be seen as being biased here because my alma mater would make both the flagship and public ivy template. It's just that I think they're too subjective and unencyclopedic terms to make for good wiki.--Sam Harmon (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The template is an open invitation to WP:OR-flavored boosterism, seems to be inherently problematic from a WP:NPOV standpoint, and is of questionable encyclopedic utility besides. --Dynaflow babble 03:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too many POV problems. Amerique^dialectics 19:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Mergers

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old, unused template. I found it being used on one page - Category:Criminal organizations —Eliyak T·C 02:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's obvious from prose whether the subjects of an article have merged to another organization. –Pomte 12:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I really don't understand what this was ever supposed to be for. Happy‑melon 13:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ancientGrey Wanderer | Talk 18:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsensical and unlikely to be used. Maralia (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete template not needed. The lead section of an article should explain the subject. Flibirigit (talk) 05:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The template is mainly about The article which is mainly about Mergers that merged with another place. Yeah, I agree. ViperSnake151 16:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.